SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(MP) 866

S.P.KHARE
Chokhelal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAJENDRA TIWARI, S.M.Lal, UDAYAN TIWARI,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondent No. 4 and order dated 17-5-2000 (Annexure P-2) of the respondent No. 1 by virtue of which the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Training Instructor. That post was later on redesignated as Sports Officer. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15-3-1939. He attained the age of 60 years on 15-3-1999. He continued to work as Sports Officer. It is also not disputed that by M. P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the age of retirement of teacher has been raised to 62 years. In this Act, definition of teacher has been given in the Explanation to Section 2 (1-a ). That reads :

"for the purpose of this sub-rule "teacher" means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appo







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top